<p>^ the gene for a "completely altruistic person" can only result from a mutation, imo. And that's definitely not realistic (you saw what happened in X-men).</p>
<p>I think the purpose of our lives is to die.</p>
<p>^im guessing you just ran out of prozac.</p>
<p>we'll find out someday..............................................someday...........................?</p>
<p>Holden, are you simply going to ignore my request?</p>
<p>"You've mentioned on several threads about idealism and realism and Plato and Aristotle. Because so many of us have different notions or no notion of what idealism, realism, or whateverism is, why don't you explain what you mean about idealism sucking? Also, you could say why you think Plato fits in this category of idealist."</p>
<p>aplogies, DRAb, i must have missed that. hope you didnt lose any sleep over it...</p>
<p>Indeed, i think idealism sucks, and heres why: it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Example: The Catholic Church not allowing women (or even gay men) to become preists. Before i begin i would like everyone to note that i myself am catholic, so i have as much right as any to criticize the church. Ok. So the catholic church takes an idealist approach to the matter of who should be able to become priests. that is, in an ideal world the catholic church would have its traditions upheld: only straight MEN would be priests. This is all well and good, except for the fact that the catholic church is more or less dying because of the lack of priests. futhermore, the church says, and has always said, its primary purpose is to spread the word of God. However, with its retarded idealist stance, very few new priests are being ordained, and as a result churches all around the world are being shut down. hmmm, churches being shut down...? this seems somewhat contradictory to "spreading the word of god". if the church would take a realist stance on the issue, they would see that without women and gay priests, the demise of the entire church is quite possible. they would see that there own tradtions are leading to thier downfall. if women and gay men WERE allowed to be ordained, there is no denying that new churches would spring up everywhere, hence spreading the word of god to a much better, larger degree. that is why idealism sucks. i see it as more of a fantasy type way of thinking. it pretty much disregards and ignores REALITY.</p>
<p>"Also, you could say why you think Plato fits in this category of idealist."</p>
<p>um, im not sure any expaination is really needed...? plato is simply KNOWN as an idealist. i have textbooks that list "idealist" under plato's name. so its really not me "thinking" he fits in this catagory, he simply DOES. its a fact...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed, i think idealism sucks
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Eloquent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it accomplishes absolutely nothing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Welcome to philosophy, where you will meet very little accomplishment. We are still working with the same problems, but are just attacking them with different methods. </p>
<p>
[quote]
that is, in an ideal world the catholic church would have its traditions upheld: only straight MEN would be priests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not idealism, they are just arguing as a matter of principle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, with its retarded idealist stance,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So a stance can be mentally deficient?</p>
<p>
[quote]
this seems somewhat contradictory
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Somewhat contradictory? It either contradicts or it does not, and you can only choose one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that is why idealism sucks. i see it as more of a fantasy type way of thinking. it pretty much disregards and ignores REALITY.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, I think you are misunderstanding what idealism is.</p>
<p>Plato was an idealist not because he discussed ideas on a vacuum, or any of that rubbish, but because he privileged the rationality as a means to attaining the most perfect sort of knowledge. Idealism is not a form of generating ideas, it is just a means of accessing knowledge, be it to some noumenal realm of metaphysics, or through introspection (your typical Cartesian comes to mind). Some philosophers reject idealism, or rationalism (as some would like to refer to it, though the two notions are not coextensive), such that the foundations of knowledge, indeed knowledge itself, is grounded in experience. Kant is famously known for espousing a transcendential idealism: we do gain knowledge from experience, but the methods for categorizing and schematizing are a priori.</p>
<p>There exists many legitimate forms of idealism: in mathematics, there is a view called Mathematical Platonism (I will leave you to guess what that is).</p>
<p>But by subjecting your argument to a reductio, Rawls would be considered an idealist because his theory of justice is merely an 'ideal'; however, Rawls is typically described as a pragmatist!</p>
<p>Think about what you are arguing against, and then formulate your attacks. Neophytes often attack the wrong ideas because they do not understand what they are targeting. </p>
<p>Also, I suggest adopting a different method to understanding philosophy. The goal is not to refute previous arguments, but to understand them in their best light. Educate yourself about what exactly constitutes idealism: read books, do research, write papers, and so on. For instance, I was a strong believer in natural law theory, especially Dworkin's conception, but I decided to read legal positivism of H.L.A. Hart and, surprise, I am now a legal positivist.</p>
<p>A part of being a good philosopher is being able to suspend judgment until adequate evidence is given. Usually what causes the outright rejection of certain philosophies is not any genuinely rational, logical argument, but rather a personal conviction that it must be wrong.</p>
<p>One day in the distant future the human mind will be so wise and knowledgable that we will be able to transcend the physical plane of existence and enter into the haven of the cosmos. Our bodies will become insignificant, we will become the energies that fuel our universe, "spirits" in the fullest sense of the word, freeing ourselves from the shackles of time and space forever...as gods of our existence, we will rest in eternal harmony. </p>
<p>We will learn both to die and to bring life anew; that is the purpose of our being.</p>
<p>^ um...i'm sorry, what?</p>
<p>
[quote]
One day in the distant future the human mind will be so wise and knowledgable that we will be able to transcend the physical plane of existence and enter into the haven of the cosmos.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not if evolution has anything to say about it. To be sure, there is a reason why we cannot distance ourselves from assumptions about nature that are hard-wired in us. </p>
<p>See: Daniel Dennett, *Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting<a href="Cambridge:%20MIT%20Press">/i</a>.</p>
<p>We are all a little sphexish. That is what it is to be human!</p>
<p>Alright I'll get back to the main topic of this board, discussing the purpose of our existence rather than pointing out someone's grammatical errors.</p>
<p>First of all, I know nspeds doesn't like ppl refuting ideas, but existentialism is a bunch of bull. I think you ppl have been reading too much Waiting for Godot. </p>
<p>Human existence either has a purpose, or it has no purpose. "Deciding" what is the purpose of your existence is illogical. Let's put it down to a simpler scale. It's like figuring out the purpose of a telephone. Clearly, man created the telephone to make phone calls. It was created for that purpose. Can the phone itself 'decide' what its purpose is? No, it cannot decide or change the purpose of its existence.</p>
<p>Btw, someone on this forum, a person who is obviously a logical, empirical, science-is-the-world Dr. Spock wannabe, claimed that humans, life, the mind-- all consciousness is just a series of random chemical processes that randomly came about. </p>
<p>Well if you want to get all scientifical about it, then realize this. All the right conditions on the earth for life-- ozone, proximity to a star, temperature, water & land, day/night/seasons cycle, etc etc etc the list goes on-- the exact conditions for life are so unprobable, that the chance for life springing up in the universe are infinitesemal. The research is out there, i don't care to link it.</p>
<p>Now of course you may say that in such a large universe and unlimited time, even the most improbable is bound to happen every once in a while. However, according to science, the universe is only 6 billion years old and already of a <em>very general</em> known size that is expanding. Thus, even with the seemingly great size and time the universe is, the chances of life are still infinitely small to have already occurred.</p>
<p>Speaking of life, do you have any idea how complex our DNA is? DNA in our universe is the same feat as if all the heavenly bodies in the universe aligned to spell 'Happy Birthday Timmy.' I guess is possible, but... </p>
<p>Anyhow, I do not believe in free will either. I guess I'm kind of an opposite man here on this forum. I mean, if you could reverse time, and start it again, would not the same outcome, the same choices be made? Thus, I believe the concept of fate exists.</p>
<p>In other terms, when given a decision to make, would one not always choose the decision they *wanted to make? Given their experiences and genetics and the situation, wouldn't they always choose the same one? One always chooses the decisions they most want to make based on circumstances, which would be the same everytime.</p>
<p>It seems randomness does not exist.</p>
<p>Let's say at 10:15 you cast a pair of die and get two 6's.
It seems random.
But if you would reverse back time and play it again, you would provide the same force on that die based on your mood or fatigue, whatever, the same wind and gravity would act on that die, friction, etc and it would land exactly the same.</p>
<p>Well, that's my two cents.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, I know nspeds doesn't like ppl refuting ideas, but existentialism is a bunch of bull. I think you ppl have been reading too much Waiting for Godot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I must concur on that point:D</p>